Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 September, 2022
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -1-
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.09.2022
Lakhwinder Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-33273-2022
This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
taking up application bearing No.CRM-2228-2020 which was filed in CRA-
S-1392-SB-2017 and to pass an appropriate final order.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that
in the present case, the matter has been compromised and even the report of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur which was called for by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, has been received and as per the same,
compromise has been stated to be genuine and bona fide and thus,
application i.e. CRM-2228-2020 alongwith main appeal i.e. CRA-S-1392-
1 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -2-
SB-2017 be heard and considered.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that he
has no objection in case, the main appeal alongwith abovesaid application
are heard and decided today itself.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present application is allowed and application i.e. CRM-2228-2020
alongwith main appeal i.e. CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 are taken on Board today
itself for final disposal.
Main case
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No.7 of 26.05.2015 in case FIR No.137
dated 08.12.2014 registered under Sections 452, 459, 325, 323, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") at Police
Station Longowal, District Sangrur.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant has been convicted as under:-
"Accordingly, he is directed to undergo following sentence:
Name of the convict Offence Sentence awarded
Lakhwinder Singh U/s 452 IPC To undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (one thousand
only) and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo simple
imprisonment for a period
of ten days.
2 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -3-
U/s 325 IPC To undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (one thousand
only) and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo simple
imprisonment for a period
of ten days.
U/s 323 IPC To undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six
months
U/s 506 IPC To undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six
months
It is hereby clarified that previous period spent in
custody if any must be set off by the Jail Authorities from the
substantive sentence awarded. All the sentences shall run
concurrently."
It is further submitted that one of the accused namely
Sukhjinder Singh was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur
and third accused namely Ranjit Kaur was released on probation. It is
contended that vide order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court, the main appeal was admitted and sentence of the present
appellant was suspended during the pendency of the main appeal. It is
further contended that thereafter, an application i.e. CRM-2228-2020 was
filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for permission to
compound the offence on the basis of compromise in the said case and the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2020, had directed
the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- and had also directed the
parties to record the statements before the trial Court with respect to
compromise. It is further submitted that on 25.02.2020, the appellant was
permitted to compound the offence. It is argued that in pursuance of the said
3 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -4-
order, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur has sent its report, as per
which, the compromise has been found to be genuine and entered into
voluntarily. Relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"In pursuance of the orders dated 23.01.2020 passed by
Honorable High Court, in the above mentioned Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition, filed by accused Lakhwinder Singh,
he has produced two receipts regarding deposit of
Rs.40,000/- as condition precedent for recording the
statements qua compromise. Thereafter, the statements of
both the parties i.e. accused Lakhwinder Singh and
complainant Jagtar Singh, injured Charanjit Kaur and
Amanjot Kaur (minor through her father Jagtar Singh) were
recorded separately. All of them have unanimously stated
that the matter has been compromised between them out of
their free will and without any pressure or coercion. They
have been identified by their respective Counsels. Having
considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine and the
parties have entered into compromise voluntarily, without
any pressure, coercion, or influence. Report is accordingly
submitted. The statements of parties are enclosed herewith,
as desired please.
Submitted please.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Dr. Rajneesh,
Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur (UID-PB0172)"
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a perusal
of the said report would show that the compromise has been found to be
genuine and thus, on the basis of the said report, the application for
4 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -5-
compounding of offence deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
appellant is the only person aggrieved by the impugned order as other
accused have either been acquitted or have been released on probation and
have not challenged the judgment. He has further relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs.
State of Gujarat and another, reported as 2012 (12) SCC 401, to contend
that where there is a partial compromise with some of the accused then also,
the proceedings against the said appellant/accused should be quashed as the
same would not even remotely result in conviction of the said accused.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the
judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in CRM-M-16318-2015 titled as Dalip
Mandal and another Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others in which
case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition
qua the petitioners only although, the matter had not been compromised
between all the parties.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has stated that in the
present case, there were three accused persons i.e. the present appellant,
Ranjit Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh. Sukhjinder Singh was acquitted of the
charges framed against him and Ranjit Kaur was released on probation. It is
further submitted that the appellant has been convicted under Sections 452,
325, 323 and 506 of the IPC as offence under Section 459 of the IPC had
not been proved.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
5 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -6-
perused the paper book.
The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.137 dated
08.12.2014 was registered under Sections 452, 459, 325, 323, 34 of the IPC
at Police Station Longowal and in the said case, there were three accused
persons i.e. the present appellant, Ranjit Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh. The
trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, had acquitted Sukhjinder
Singh and convicted Ranjit Kaur and Lakhwinder Singh under Sections 325,
323, 506 and 452 of the IPC and had acquitted them under Section 459 of
the IPC. Ranjit Kaur was released on probation whereas the present
appellant was sentenced as has been detailed hereinabove. The maximum
sentence awarded to the appellant was two years of rigorous imprisonment.
The said Ranjit Kaur has not filed any appeal and it is the present appellant
who has filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the present appeal,
the application i.e. CRM-2228-2020 has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for permission to compound the offence on the basis of
compromise. The detailed compromise has also been annexed as Annexure
A-2 with the application. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 23.01.2020, had directed the appellant to deposit Rs.40,000/- as pre-
condition for recording the statements qua compromise and after deposit of
the same, had directed the parties to record their statements before the
Appellate Court and the Appellate Court was directed to submit its report to
this Court. On 25.02.2020, the appellant was permitted to compound the
offence. A perusal of the report submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangrur would show that an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been deposited and
6 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -7-
the Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine and voluntary.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its latest judgment
dated 29.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 titled as Ramgopal
and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" and connected matter, has
discussed in detail the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
along with other issues. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
2. The prosecution version, arising out of FIR dated 3rd
November 2000, Police Station Ambah, Morena, M.P. is
that on account of certain monetary dispute, the
Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh
(Complainant). Appellant No.1 is alleged to have struck
the Complainant with a pharsa , which resultantly cut off
the little finger of his left hand. Appellant No.2 also
struck lathi blows on the body of the Complainant.
Appellants were thereafter committed for trial under
Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 3 of the
Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1989. Upon analyzing the evidence, the
Learned Judicial Magistrate(FC), Ambah, convicted the
Appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with
34 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years under
Section 326 read with 34 IPC.
xxx xxx xxx
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the
nature of the offence and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of
7 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -8-
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if
the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can
indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the
offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,
even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze
the very object of the administration of criminal justice
system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving
non-heinous offences or where the offences are
predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled
irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form
of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise is
struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise
such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due
regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the
extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would
be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard
and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to
do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to
rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave
injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous
offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such
8 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -9-
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by
this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
& Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
xxx xxx xxx
19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes
and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be
exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal
proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness
of the injury, if any ; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations."
A perusal of the abovesaid judgment would show that it has
been held that the extra ordinary power is enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. which can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. It has further been observed that criminal proceedings
involving non henious offences can be annulled irrespective of the fact that
trial has already been concluded and appeal stands dismissed against
conviction and that handing out punishment is not the sole form of
delivering justice. Thus, it goes without saying, that the cases where
9 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -10-
compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such
discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the
incident.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
28.01.2016 passed in CRM-M-17272-2015 titled as Ram Parkash and
others Vs. State of Punjab and others, has allowed the petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. under similar circumstances. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is
for quashing of the FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005
(Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148
and 149 IPC(subsequently added Section 308 and 336
IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar,
District-Nawanshahar, on the basis of compromise dated
06.02.2015(Annexure P-4) and all other subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, both dated 25.09.2013
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby the accused-petitioners,
were convicted and sentenced...
xxx--xxx--xxx
Quashing of the aforesaid FIR and setting aside of the
impugned judgment and order of sentence dated
25.09.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, is sought on the basis of
compromise dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-4), entered
into between the parties during the pendency of the
appeal before this Court.
xxx--xxx--xxx
This Court in the case of Sube Singh and another
10 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -11-
Versus State of Haryana and another 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal) 102 has considered the compounding of
offences at the appellate stage and has observed that
even when appeal against the conviction is pending
before the Sessions Court and parties entered into a
compromise, the High Court is vested unparallel power
under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings
at any stage so as to secure the ends of justice and has
observed as under:-
"15. The refusal to invoke power under Section
320 CrPC, however, does not debar the High
Court from resorting to its inherent power under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and pass an
appropriate order so as to secure the ends of
justice.
16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned
Single Judge whether the inherent power under
Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash
the criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties can
be invoked even if the accused has been held guilty
and convicted by the trial Court, we find that in
Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Anr., 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 910 :
(2008)5 SCC 794, the unfortunate matrimonial
dispute was settled after the appellant (husband)
had been convicted under Section 498A Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to 18 months'
imprisonment and his appeal was pending before
the first appellate court. The Apex Court quashed
the criminal proceedings keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
in the interest of justice observing that
11 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -12-
"continuation of criminal proceedings would be an
abuse of the process of law" and also by invoking
its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Since the High Court does not possess any power
akin to the one under Article 142 of the
Constitution, the cited decision cannot be
construed to have vested the High Court with such
like unparallel power.
17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent
the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice,
however, is wide enough to include its power to
quash the proceedings in relation to not only the
non compoundable offences notwithstanding the
bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code
but such a power, in our considered view, is
exercisable at any stage save that there is no
express bar and invoking of such power is fully
justified on facts and circumstances of the case.
18. xxx xxx
19. xxx xxx
20. xxx xxx
21. In the light of these peculiar facts and
circumstances where not only the parties but their
close relatives (including daughter and son-in-law
of respondent No.2) have also supported the
amicable settlement, we are of the considered view
that the negation of the compromise would
disharmonize the relationship and cause a
permanent rift amongst the family members who
are living together as a joint family.
Nonacceptance of the compromise would also lead
12 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -13-
to denial of complete justice which is the very
essence of our justice delivery system. Since there
is no statutory embargo against invoking of power
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after
conviction of an accused by the trial Court and
during pendency of appeal against such
conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction and strike down the
proceedings subject to certain safeguards.
22. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated,
we allow this petition and set aside the judgement
and order dated 16.03.2009 passed in Criminal
Case No. 425-1 of 2000 of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, on the basis of
compromise dated 08.08.2011 arrived at between
them and their step-mother respondent No.2 (Smt.
Reshma Devi) w/o late Rajmal qua the petitioners
only. As a necessary corollary, the criminal
complaint filed by respondent No.2 is dismissed
qua the petitioners on the basis of above-stated
compromise. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by
the petitioners against the above-mentioned order
dated 16.03.2009 would be rendered infructuous
and shall be so declared by the first Appellate
Court at Hisar."
Similarly, in the case of Baghel Singh Versus State of
Punjab 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 578, whereby the
accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years, the parties entered into compromise during the
pendency of the appeal. This Court while relying upon
the judgment of Lal Chand Versus State of Haryana,
2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh Versus
13 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -14-
State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 392 allowed
the compounding of offence in respect of offence under
Section 326 IPC at the appellate stage with the
observation that it will be a starting point in maintaining
peace between the parties, such offence can be
compounded.
xxx--xxx--xxx
Accordingly, FIR No.225, dated 24.08.2005 (Annexure
P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 452, 506, 148 and 149
IPC (subsequently added Section 308 and 336 IPC),
registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar,
District-Nawanshahar and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, qua the accused petitioners, are
quashed, on the basis of compromise dated 06.02.2015
Annexure P-4), subject to payment of costs of
Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal
Services Authority, Chandigarh.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, both dated 25.09.2013 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, are
set aside subject to payment of cost."
A coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment dated
09.03.2017 passed in CRR no.390 of 2017 titled as "Kuldeep Singh vs.
Vijay Kumar and another" has held as under:-
"Reliance can be placed on Kaushalya Devi Massand
vs. Roopkishore Khore, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 298
and Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010
(SC) 1097. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
in terms of Section 401 Cr.P.C. would result in bringing
about ends of justice between the parties in the event of
finding that the compromise is genuine, bonafide and
14 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -15-
free from any undue influence.
The compromise in question would serve as a everlasting
tool in favour of the parties for which indulgence can be
given by this Court. The revisional exercise would also
be in consonance with the spirit of Section 147 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
The principle as laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu vs.
Sayed Babalal, AIR 2010 (SC) 1097, would be squarely
fortified if the compromise in question is allowed to be
effected between the parties with leave of the Court. In
view of aforesaid, impugned judgment dated 19.01.2017
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib
vide which conviction and sentence of the petitioner was
upheld stands quashed. The revision petition is allowed
subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount as per
ratio laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) to
State Legal Services Authority, failing which this order
will be of no consequence. Necessary consequences to
follow."
Reliance in the abovesaid judgment was also placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case
(supra) and thus, as per settled law, this Court has the power to set aside the
judgment of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a valid
compromise. The compromise in the present case is genuine and valid.
Keeping in view the law laid down in the abovesaid judgment,
more so the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramgopal
& Anr's case (supra), the relevant parameters for consideration as laid down
by the said judgment, would be considered by this Court. Firstly, the
occurrence which is involved in the present appeal can be categorized as
15 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -16-
purely personal/criminal act of private nature. Secondly, the injuries which
have been caused are not dangerous to life and do not appear to exhibit an
element of mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious
nature, that quashing the criminal proceedings of such like cases would
override public interest. Thirdly, in view of the injuries and the offence, it
would be immaterial that the appellant has been convicted by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Fourthly, the compromise is without any coercion
or compulsion and has been entered into willingly and voluntarily as per the
report of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Fifthly, the occurrence took
place in the year 2014 and there is nothing to show that any untoward
incident has taken place after the same. Sixthly, the appellant as well as
complainant are both residents of Mander Kalan, Tehsil Longowal, District
Sangrur and are also related to each other and thus, quashing of the present
proceedings would bring peace and harmony among the parties. Seventhly,
the object of administration of the criminal justice system would remain
unaffected on acceptance of the said amicable settlement between the
parties and /or resultant acquittal of the appellant.
This Court is of the view that since Section 452 of IPC is non-
compoundable, thus, the Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and also in
view of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, would have the
power to quash the FIR qua the present appellant in view of the compromise
which has been found to be genuine and bona fide.
Thus, keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances,
the application bearing No.CRM-2228-2020 filed under Section 482 of
16 of 17
CRM-33273-2022 in/and
CRA-S-1392-SB-2017 (O&M) -17-
Cr.P.C. is allowed and FIR No.137 dated 08.12.2014 registered under
Sections 452, 459, 325, 323, 34 of the IPC at Police Station Longowal,
District Sangrur as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed qua the appellant and judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur are set
aside qua the present appellant.
Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
12.09.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
17 of 17
